"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The last couple of days, liberals on Twitter have been raging because these pro-Kavanaugh ads from the Judicial Crisis Network have been airing on CNN and MSNBC:

“The accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are a smear. . . . It never happened. Confirm Kavanaugh.”

Liberals are used to living inside a media-created partisan bubble. Yesterday, I turned over and watched a few hours of CNN, and it was basically just a parade of Democrat senators and anti-Kavanaugh “experts” repeating the same talking points. Most conservatives watch Fox News, and have no idea how one-sided CNN’s coverage of this issue (and every other issue) has been. When people talk about how divided the country has become, it is in large measure because of this cable-news factor, where two networks (CNN and MSNBC) believe they have a patriotic duty to protect their viewers from any facts that might contradict the liberal narrative. Are viewers of Fox News similarly insulated? No, because they are seeing all the accusations made against Kavanaugh — including the pathetic liar Julie Swetnick, whose charges NBC frankly admits cannot be corroborated — even while they’re hearing the common-sense interpretation of these accusations, i.e., it’s all part of a flimsy partisan smear-job. Front page of the New York Times:

Democrats and their media propagandists have been reduced to this: Yale kids get rowdy in a New Haven bar — front page news!

Does anyone remember 2008? It was reported that Barack Obama had launched his political career in the home of Bill Ayers, who had notoriously led the terrorist Weather Underground in the 1970s. Oh, this was old news and irrelevant, we were assured by the liberal media — the same liberal media that now insists we should be alarmed that Brett Kavanaugh threw ice at some guy in a New Haven bar in 1985.

Something is wrong with Christine Blasey Ford’s story, and not just the fact that none of the people she named as witnesses to her alleged 1982 encounter with Brett Kavanaugh remember any such incident. There is a conspicuous hole in Professor Ford’s biography — some important details seem to be missing — and we don’t know what the missing elements might be. The FBI has been assigned to conduct an investigation, which may or may not fill in this unexplained void in Professor Ford’s biography, which has been bothering me ever since I read a Sept. 22 Washington Post article with the headline, “Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford moved 3,000 miles to reinvent her life. It wasn’t far enough.”
The implied premise of the Post article was that the reason young Miss Blasey left the D.C. area after high school and never returned, except to visit her family, because she was traumatized by the experience of being assaulted by Kavanaugh at a house party. But this doesn’t make sense at all. By the time she started her senior year at Holton-Arms School, Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University, some 300 miles away in Connecticut. Even if young Miss Blasey were eager to leave the D.C. region, why would she choose to attend the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill? UNC is a fine school, but there were and are many other equally good schools she could have chosen, and she’s never explained what it was specifically that led her to Chapel Hill. Of course, this choice may have no special significance or relevance to her recent accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, but if the explanation we’ve been given doesn’t make sense, shouldn’t we be curious what the real explanation is? And there are many similar questions that might cross the minds of Americans trying to figure out why she would tell this story which no one so far has been able to verify. . . .